Flath Natalie, Tobin Karin, Mihailovic Aleks, Hammond Paige, Latkin Carl
Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Subst Abuse. 2018 Sep 10;12:1178221818799753. doi: 10.1177/1178221818799753. eCollection 2018.
Among 100 people who inject drugs enrolled in a peer mentorship intervention aiming to promote injection-related risk reduction behavior change, we evaluated the role of participation in a dyad session on reducing sharing of syringes and cookers in the past 6 months. Dyad participants (n = 69) invited an injection, sex partner, or family member to the study site to reinforce learnt behavior change tools by practicing communication skills and risk reduction lessons. In all, 31 participants did not participate in the dyad session. We descriptively assessed changes in sharing injection equipment between the 2 time points of pre- and postintervention using the tests of proportions by dyad participation. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sex was used with an interaction term (time points × dyad participation) to evaluate the dyad effect. Dyad participants reported reduced syringe and cooker sharing at postintervention (sharing syringe: 17% versus 39%, < .05 and cooker: 32% versus 59%, < .01). There was no difference between the dyad group's sharing injection equipment behavior after the intervention (sharing syringes: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-3.9 and cookers: aOR 0.72; 95% CI 0.1-3.5). The role of the dyad session alone on risk taking was not effective. With a small sample size, it is important to continue to evaluate the nature of peer-based dyadic experiences in future studies.
在100名参与旨在促进与注射相关的风险降低行为改变的同伴辅导干预的吸毒者中，我们评估了参与二元组会议在减少过去6个月内注射器和烹饪器具共用方面的作用。二元组参与者（n = 69）邀请一名注射伙伴、性伴侣或家庭成员到研究地点，通过练习沟通技巧和风险降低课程来强化所学的行为改变工具。共有31名参与者未参加二元组会议。我们使用按二元组参与情况进行的比例检验，对干预前和干预后这两个时间点之间共用注射设备的变化进行了描述性评估。使用包含交互项（时间点×二元组参与情况）的多变量逻辑回归，并对性别进行了调整，以评估二元组的效果。二元组参与者报告称，干预后注射器和烹饪器具的共用情况有所减少（共用注射器：17%对39%，P <.05；烹饪器具：32%对59%，P <.01）。干预后二元组组内共用注射设备的行为没有差异（共用注射器：调整后的优势比[aOR]为0.76；95%置信区间[CI]为0.1 - 3.9；烹饪器具：aOR为0.72；95% CI为0.1 - 3.5）。仅二元组会议对冒险行为的作用并不显著。由于样本量较小，在未来的研究中继续评估基于同伴的二元组体验的性质很重要。
